Nearly two years ago, I wrote a rebuttal to a Wall Street Journal Op Ed piece by Dr. Paul McHugh. It continues to be one of the most frequent search items and reads on my site. About two weeks ago, someone supportive of Dr. McHugh posted a comment worthy of reply. And reply I have!

Here is the unedited comment. The link to my original post is contained in the first line:

On June 12, 2014, an Op Ed article by Dr. Paul McHugh was highly critical of the prevailing trends in the treatment protocols …

You say: …”why 25% of those tracked in the Vanderbilt and Portman studies would persist in having transgender ‘feelings’. Could it be that the subjects know who they are?”

It’s far more likely that, as with other psychiatric conditions like Anorexia, the “feelings” are simply wrong. There’s no reason to believe transgender is different from the numerous other conditions whose root symptom is the same: a mental rejection of the physical reality. This is a huge problem for the “transgender as identity” movement and why it relies on emotion-based justifications like the one you make that the earnestness and “realness” of the transgender “identity” separates it from other delusional conditions. Yet patents with other conditions like BDD and schizophrenia are just as convinced that their perception is absolutely real. Transgender has no corner on realness.

Moreover, the thought that someone can actually know what the other gender feels like makes no more sense than someone knowing what another species feels like because you can’t experience something you aren’t. Whatever experience there is is entirely the result of BEING that thing, not imagining it.

Whether SRS is better than psychotherapy or hormone therapy or a combination… science just doesn’t have enough data for consensus, but again – when transgender is viewed in the light of similar delusional conditions, the idea of altering the physical body to fit the mental perception is dangerous. You wouldn’t indulge an Anorexic by administering liposuction. SRS has severe drawbacks and potential complications and is the only treatment that’s essentially irreversible. Science doesn’t yet have a cure for transexual – there may not even be one – we just don’t know. But the lack of a cure doesn’t mean SRS is the best treatment, nor that those who recommend against it like Dr. McHugh are out to get transexuals. Someone truly interested in helping transexuals accepts the science over the emotion.

Finally, brain studies do nothing to refute the fact that gender is purely a biological construct. Schizophrenics, Anorexics and people with BDD all have have been shown to have brain abnormalities which, while potentially valuable in assisting treatment, don’t substantiate the reality of their delusions.

And here is my reply:

Hi Marshall,

First of all, your comparison of transgender to anorexia (or the more general BDD) shows how little you understand the nature of transgender. No matter how thin anorexics become, even to the point of skin and bones, they remain obsessed with losing weight. Many will continue to see themselves as overweight even when dangerously underweight.

Transgender people, on the other hand, are all too aware of the reality of our bodies. Some of us may loathe them, but we acknowledge them. Often, we go the opposite direction and enhance the features of the gender assigned at birth in an effort to cure. For example, an MTF will grow facial hair and/or develop a muscular, athletic build. That is totally opposite what an anorexic would do. It is totally opposite what your assertion would predict.

We are under no delusion as to what our faces look like, how much hair we have, what our breasts look like and what our genitalia is comprised of. That knowledge is very real and accurate. And whatever each one of us chooses to do, we do it knowing that the physical transformation isn’t perfect. But it almost always helps.

What we attempt to do is deny our mental reality, not our physical one. But if we live long enough, that attempt will inevitably be in vain. Furthermore, once we reach the point where we begin physical transformation to our innate gender identity, it is a rare case when we don’t reach a point of relative satisfaction. Yes, we have the common human trait of wanting to look attractive to others. But obsession with continually becoming more feminine (in the case of an MTF) or more masculine (in the case of an FTM) is rare and it isn’t a trait confined to transgender people. We have certainly read of cisgender people who undergo surgery after surgery to look like Barbie or Ken or their favorite movie star.

Transgender isn’t so much a matter of our body being wrong, but our conviction that our minds are right. Yes, we transform for our own sense of what we want to look like. But just as much, we transform so that others will identify us consistent with the person we are inside. It isn’t enough that I know that I am female. I want others to see me as female, too. Fortunately for me, that seems to be how everyone sees me.

In my case, I was in denial of how feminine (or at least androgynous) I was in appearance. As to how attractive I am, others may judge (my Links page has a link to my Flickr page). But when I tell people that one of my reasons why I waited so long to transition was concern that I couldn’t look female enough, most of them are incredulous.

I also find your argument on this point somewhat disingenuous. First of all, if we didn’t transform physically at all (at least in our presentation), the authenticity of our gender identity would be severely questioned. Second, many people in our culture are unhappy with their appearance and go to various lengths to do something about it: everything from diet and exercise, to body sculpting and body building to plastic surgery to supplements (ranging from the mild to the extreme). When people do these things in a healthy way, there is nothing wrong with it. When it becomes an obsession or is taken to an extreme, then there is indication of a psychological issue. Similarly, some obsessive people may be transgender, but most transgender people are not obsessive about appearance.

To compare transgender brains with schizophrenic brains, as you then proceed to do, is not only disingenuous, it is insulting. The brain abnormalities in schizophrenics include significantly lower amounts (up to 25% less) of gray matter, particularly in the temporal or frontal lobes, and significantly lower levels of activation in the middle frontal cortex and the inferior parietal cortex compared to mentally healthy people. It is these abnormal deficiencies that cause the problems that schizophrenics have with hallucinations and dealing with reality.

On the other hand, the so-called abnormality of transgender brains is that various studies have shown that transgender people tend to have brains more like their innate gender than their gender assigned at birth. But these brains all lie within a male-female spectrum. So unless you are claiming that either male brains or female brains are somehow deficient or diseased in and of themselves, your argument doesn’t bear up to scrutiny.

You state that it is not possible for someone of one gender to know what the other gender feels. On face value, I can accept that statement for the sake of discussion. But then you take it someplace beyond facts in evidence. You have made the assumption that every person’s gender identity must automatically be consistent with their genital anatomy, and that anything else is “wrong”. What is this based on? How do you propose to prove this to be so?

You are aware, are you not, that the brain and the genitalia are differentiated at different stages of fetal development? Why is it so difficult to conceive of the possibility that in a small percentage of cases, the baby received predominantly testosterone at one of those stages and predominantly estrogen at another? And if anatomy automatically determines gender identity, then what gender are Intersex people? Are they automatically non-binary? Some are and some aren’t. Are they automatically consistent with the predominant characteristics? Some are and some aren’t. What about people who have both XX and XY? What about people who have neither? What do you do with people who suffer from various hormone based syndromes? The bottom line is this: how can you judge the wrongness of someone’s gender identity without knowing either their physical or mental situation?

True, I have no idea what the other gender feels like. That “other gender” for me is the male gender. By virtue of having spent a great deal of time in men’s only spaces (athletic team locker rooms, college dorms, men’s ministry meetings, men’s bathrooms), I have a pretty good idea of what men are likely to do. But I have little clue as to why they do things the way they do and how it feels for them when they do it. I generally felt like an interloper at men only gatherings, but I am now right at home in women’s Bible study or women’s only social gatherings.

Now as far as your statement about lack of evidence: seriously? I can easily find at least hundreds of people who transitioned to live a successful, satisfying life in their innate gender. Undoubtedly many more are successfully living post-transition out of the public eye. And in the 2011 Karolinska Institute study that Dr. McHugh misconstrues, he blithely ignored the preponderance of patient satisfaction with the results of transition that includes surgery. Isn’t that one of the goals of treatment, that the patients are satisfied with the results? Furthermore, he totally ignored the Institute’s conclusion: inadequate follow up care for post-GCS transgender patients impedes progress in their post-operative mental and emotional health.

Meanwhile, where is the parade of transgender people who have been “cured” by methods espoused by Dr. McHugh? Surgery as a possible treatment for transgender people is no more than 85 years old and extremely rare until 50 years ago. For the vast majority of that time, most mental health professionals were treating transgender patients in the general manner endorsed by Dr. McHugh: psychotherapy and pharmacology to attempt to rid the patient of their transgenderism. And there are still doctors using these methods. Where are there success stories? Surely they aren’t all in stealth mode. There should be thousands more than those reported by those who transition to their innate gender. Their absence shows that there was no significant success with these methods when they were the mainstream practice and there is no significant success with these methods now.

For a moment, let’s imagine we are talking cancer rather than transgender. If faced with two possible treatments, one with a success rate comparable to those who physically transform in some way, shape or form, the other with a success rate comparable to methods espoused by McHugh and others who still follow that methodology, you would be a fool not to choose or recommend the first method in a heartbeat. And I will tell you unequivocally that if social stigma against transgender people was a thing of the past, that success rate would soar much higher.

We now have two studies, one in Ontario and the other in the State of Washington, that show a high correlation of life success for transitioning youth with a high degree of parental support. If transgender were merely a delusion, should such a correlation exist? In fact, shouldn’t supporting a delusion be more harmful? That’s what you and McHugh are claiming, no?

And we now have a better grasp of why many gender variant youths revert back to their birth-assigned gender. Those who are exploring and experimenting with gender roles before puberty overwhelmingly tend to revert. But those who prior to puberty knowwith confidence that their innate gender identity is incongruent with their genitalia overwhelmingly tend to persist in their transgender identity for life. But when you lump the two groups together to get a larger sample size, it gives the erroneous impression that most transgender children revert and that there is no predictor of which children will persist. The experimenters and explorers should not be considered part of the transgender population.

I can accept that gender is purely a biological construct: once we factor in that the human brain is an organ and biological part of the human body. In fact, it could be reasonably argued that the brain to be the most significant sexual organ in the body. Where do attraction, desire and arousal begin, in the genitals or in the brain?

Furthermore, if transgender gender identities were so “wrong” and “delusional”, then one could not expect to find very many successful post-transitional transgender people, certainly few who could handle careers that call for mental acuity. And yet there are many transgender people who are college professors in both the arts and sciences, many who have high level positions (and some with PhD’s) in STEM fields, high ranking military officers, airplane pilots, financial professionals, salespeople, successful entrepreneurs, high ranking government officials, attorneys, medical doctors, architects, and the list goes on. (My professional and personal accomplishments were mentioned in my original blog post about Dr. McHugh’s Op Ed, and can also be found on my LinkedIn page.) Considering the discrimination that most of us faced during and after transition, this is a remarkable list.

Marshall, you keep going back to basing gender identity on feelings rather than knowledge. So how do you know your gender identity? (For the sake of the post, I am going to assume that Marshall is male name with apologies if I have misgendered Marshall. I ask that when this section is read, the reader substitute the appropriate gender term for their situation.) Do you feel male? How do you know that is the way males feel in general? Do you have discussions with other males at the golf course, bar, office, locker room or men’s organization meeting? (I am trying to picture that discussion! I’ve been in those types of situations many times and never once did I witness such a discussion.)

Or do you assume this is how males feel because of what you see when you look between your legs and because your parents, teachers, etc. told you that you are a boy and you blindly accepted it? Or perhaps you answered a series of questions as part of a test (if such a test exists) to accurately assess your gender and it came out “male”. If such a test existed, I took it and it came out “female” would you then accept my female gender identity as genuine?

Well, I can offer a test: the real life test. I have been presenting as the female that I know myself to be for a little over 3½ years now. I have dealt with four distinct test groups: those who knew me before transition; those who I met after transition to whom I have come out; those who only know me as Lois to whom I have not come out; strangers in public.

The vast majority (sometimes 100%) of every one of these groups see me as female. I have had no negative moments from strangers. People who have been willing to stay in my life accept me as female, although some had to overcome their prejudices first. About 30 people who I have come out to in my new church accept me as female, as well as the dozens more who I have not come out to. More than physical characteristics are involved here, although they help. But it is also mannerisms, speech patterns, body language, fashion sense, comportment and a host of little things that clue a person as to whether they are dealing with someone male or female. I am successful and happy over an extended time period.

Even more important, mentally living as a female is authentic and relatively effortless compared to having tried to act like a guy for decades. For the most part I pulled off the charade and no one ever accused me of being effeminate. But inside, it was often a struggle to be something I’m not.

In my previous blog post, I never accused Dr. McHugh of being out to get transsexuals or transgender people. What I accuse him of is having an agenda, for whatever his reason, and that it leads to bad science. A neutral scientist will seek to test a hypothesis by designing an experiment or study that is as unbiased as possible to come up with a valid result and then having it peer reviewed. McHugh is on record as having sought his position at Johns Hopkins in part so that he could shut down the Gender Identity Clinic. He promoted a study that would produce the desired result.

I now quote from the Johns Hopkins News-Letter, a story written by Rachel Witkin on May 1, 2014:

In 1979, SBCU [Sexual Behaviors Consultation Unit] Chair Jon Meyer conducted a study comparing 29 patients who had the surgery and 21 who didn’t, and concluded that those who had the surgery were not more adjusted to society than those who did not have the surgery. Meyer told The New York Times in 1979: “My personal feeling is that surgery is not proper treatment for a psychiatric disorder, and it’s clear to me that these patients have severe psychological problems that don’t go away following surgery.”

After Meyer’s study was published, Paul McHugh, the Psychiatrist-in-Chief at Hopkins Hospital who never supported the University offering the surgeries according to [Chester] Schmidt, shut the program down.

Meyer’s study came after a study conducted by [John] Money, which concluded that all but one out of 24 patients were sure that they had made the right decision, 12 had improved their occupational status and 10 had married for the first time. [Dana] Beyer believes that officials at Hopkins just wanted an excuse to end the program, so they cited Meyer’s study.

…

A 1979 New York Times article also states that not everyone was convinced by Meyer’s study and that other doctors claimed that it was “seriously flawed in its methods and statistics and draws unwarranted conclusions.”

However, McHugh says that it shouldn’t be surprising that Hopkins discontinued the surgeries, and that he still supports this decision today. He points to Meyer’s study as well as a 2011 Swedish study that states that the risk of suicide was higher for people who had the surgery versus the general population.

…

Beyer, however, cites a study from 1992 that shows that 98.5 percent of patients who underwent male-to-female surgery and 99 percent of patients who underwent female-to-male surgery had no regrets.

“It was clear to me at the time that [McHugh] was conflating sexual orientation and the actual physical act with gender identity,” Beyer said.

As I stated in my previous post, it is also clear that McHugh errs horribly by comparing the histories of transgender patients with the general population. The comparison is invalid due to the overwhelming prejudice that we face in society. Marshall, try living for a couple of years with what most out transgender people face: higher murder victim rates, higher victim of violence rates, rampant job discrimination, significantly higher incidence of UIT’s because most of us rather “hold it in” than risk using public bathrooms, significant rates of discrimination in basic health care including outright refusal to provide any care at all (2% of transgender people report having been assaulted at medical facilities), frequent rejection by family, frequent rejection by one’s faith community … I submit that it is a testimony to the mental health and strength of transgender people that so many of us have achieved any success at all after transitioning to live in our innate gender. Yet we have achieved far more than the bare minimum.

You say that “science doesn’t yet have a cure for transexual [sic]”. The evidence is in and mounting. We don’t need a cure. We just need to be believed.

Originally part of the previous post on handedness, I pick up the thread once again with song lyrics from back in the day. Thank you, Lou Christie!

And I have a confession to make. No, I’m not living a lie nor do I wear two faces (although until a few years ago, that was true).

My confession has to do with the title for my blog. It is based on out-of-date science. It is based on the idea that Mercury was the McDLT of planets: one side faces the sun and is always kept hot; the other side always faces away from the sun and always stays cold.

It is now known that the belief was erroneous. The errant observation was due to the nature of Earth’s orbit and rotation as it synchronizes with Mercury’s orbit and rotation. A layman’s explanation is that when Mercury was in its best position to be observed from Earth, the same side was always facing the sun.

I discovered this bit of information when I reconsidered my blog title recently. At first, I was not upset at the error. After all, no one corrected me on the inference I had made. So I assumed that this must be a recent discovery.

Then I dug a little deeper and my heart sank. This has been known about Mercury for 50 years! I was in junior high in 1965. Yes, I did well in math and science and hung out at times with the math/science “geek” crowd. But my interests extended beyond that one group. I was a well-rounded student who at one time or another hung out with the athletes (I lettered in four sports at my tiny private high school, Rockland Country Day School), I was one of a group of guys who would play bridge at a drop of a hat, I had one male classmate who got me interested in war gaming for a while (Avalon Hill games, for example) and a female classmate with whom I discussed classical music (she being far more knowledgeable than me).

While astronomy was never my science focus, I was interested in it. And to top it off, I attended and graduated from Cornell, where I was an engineering student for two years. By the time I arrived at Cornell in 1970, one of the best known astronomers and popularizers of science, Carl Sagan, was already there as a professor. Becoming a full professor in 1971, he was already one of the more popular and visible professors on campus. I even read (and I think I still have) one of his books, The Dragons of Eden. But somehow, I never received the memo that Mercury was a little more complex than one side always facing the sun and the other always facing away.

But the title of my blog post still fits. Not only is this still a commonly held view of the planet Mercury, it is a reminder that it can take a while for scientific knowledge to trickle down to the general public. The average citizen is not going to be aware that the medical community (AMA and American Psychiatric Association) no longer classifies transsexuals as either suffering from mental illness or engaging in a form of homosexuality. They are not going to be aware of recent studies that show that certain areas of the brains of MTF’s are closer to the normative female brain than male brain. They are not going to be aware of the recent knowledge that male and female does not always fit into neat little physical boxes (see my links page for various conditions, such as XY people giving birth, Androgen Insensitivity Disorder, other sex chromosome abnormalities and XX people born with MRKH: the lack of or severely underdeveloped vagina, fallopian tubes and uterus).

I happen to meet some of my tax clients at the local public library. I sometimes browse the used book sale to see if there is something interesting to read while I am waiting for a client. Now and then, I buy the book I started reading.

Chris Bohjalian. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Usually it will take a while before I find something I like. But last week, I zoomed in on a book. It was “Trans-sister Radio” by Chris Bohjalian. With a title like that, how could I pass it up? And while Bohjalian is a thoroughly cisgender author with a number of successful novels, I was correct: the book had a thoroughly transgender theme.

Bohjalian researched the topic very well and the writing showed it. But when I first picked up the book and read the liner notes, I thought he had erred. A resident of Vermont, he did what good authors often do: he wrote about what he knows best, so he had most of the story take place in a small town in Vermont. So it surprised me when the blurb on the back of the paperback edition stated that the main characters had to contend with the “outrage” of a “Vermont community”. I know that Vermont is a very liberal state, having elected a self-described socialist, Bernie Sanders, to the US Congress ten times (eight times to Vermont’s only House seat and twice to the US Senate). Vermont was also one of the first two states to approve Medicaid funding for surgery to treat gender identity disorder.

Then I saw that the copyright date was 2000. Bohjalian had been researching this book at the turn of this century. Now I knew he had not erred.

What is the point I am making? Simply that transgender rights has not always been a liberal cause. It has not always been a cause for the L, G and B members of that coalition. There are still some radicals who have a problem with transgender rights. And transgender allies who have worked with all four communities will tell you that even those supportive members of the first three do not understand those of us who are T.

My desire is to educate people and add transgender allies. I don’t care what other labels they give themselves. Older allies were new allies at one time. Therefore at one time, they were not allies. If they can convert, so can others.

When I came out to people, I lived by two slogans: “If I want to be understood, I need to be understanding;” “if it took me fifty years to figure this out, I can’t expect you to figure it out in fifty minutes.” So my desire is to help people understand. That requires a process. And it requires understanding what part of their belief system prevents them from being an ally already.

In my previous blog post about handedness and reviewing the historic treatment of left-handed people, we saw that there are some cases where society is driven by a need for conformity. In the related and intertwined topics of sexuality and gender, many people feel the need to see things as male or female with no gray areas. Initially at least, it isn’t a matter of hatred. It is a matter of wanting to keep life simple and manageable. Who do I call “sir” and who do I call “ma’am”? Which pronouns do I use for a person without having to ask everyone I meet?

At the beginning of this post, I discussed the time lag before which knowledge passes down from the expert level to the general population. If there are people who are not aware of the nature of transgender as a birth condition instead of being a behavioral choice, is that the fault of the student or the educator? Therefore, we need to continue to patiently educate. Some people are resistant to change, some people are skeptical of new ideas and some people are slow learners. These things take time and effort and persistence.

And then there is religious belief. As a Christian, I respect those who follow deeply held beliefs consistent with their religion. I also know that in every religion with which I am familiar, there are doctrines that are debated within the body of followers. So there is room for discussion on a number of points outside of the principal doctrines.

I have witnessed hatred first-hand from people who have turned away from me or who have attacked others in the transgender community. It could be because of ignorance, fear of a world that is moving beyond their comprehension (loss of conformity), religious fervor or any combination of them. But I have had people disagree with me without showing hatred or disrespect. Some remain in my life as good friends. Therefore, I will not automatically ascribe to hatred those who hold a different opinion on transgender issues.

I endeavor for open, honest, respectful discussion and to build consensus as a result. I do not want to be marginalized during that discussion. And I will not marginalize any other parties of the discussion by name calling or making assumptions about them. I will listen to the other person’s point of view and respond in a way that befits their beliefs.

Last year at the Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDOR), we memorialized between 300 and 400 people who we learned were killed because of their transgender identity or their alliance to transgender causes. Since there are many countries that will not acknowledge the transgender identity of murder victims, it can be reasonably assumed that the number is significantly higher. For the sake of this post, I will make a guess of 550 victims.

According to reliable statistics, 100,000 Christians are violently killed for their faith every year. That would be roughly 550 victims every two days. But it is also true that the Christian population of the world is much larger than the transgender population. There is not a matter of competition. I belong to both groups and I grieve those who lose their lives or are otherwise marginalized due to hatred against either group. And I grieve the existence of any in one of the groups who hates those of the other group, whether or not directed at me.

Last week, my story (400 word limit) was published in the online NY Times editorial series “Transgender Lives: Your Stories” (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/storywall/transgender-today/stories/lois-simmons). With the encouragement of two non-Christian members of the TG community, I focused on the acceptance I have received in my church from church leaders and others. With the permission of denomination leadership, I included the fact that my church is part of the Salvation Army.

How did I achieve acceptance at such a church? I did not compromise any of my beliefs regarding either group. After meeting with three key people who provided reasons to believe that I would be accepted, I simply let people get to know me. On a need to know basis, I came out to two people here and another person there. Based on people’s responses when I came out to them, I have ~90% acceptance, one person who asked for time to process the information (granted!) and one person who appears to be negative. I would have been thrilled with 50% acceptance!

As I put it to the college class to which I spoke last Wednesday evening, instead of coming in like a hammer, I was water. It is consistent with the feminine strength of yin-yang (gleaned from my days of studying Oriental philosophy). With nothing more than a desire to educate and bring the Christian and transgender communities together, I flowed where the terrain would allow me to go. It has brought me to a larger body of water. We shall see where it will flow next.

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. – Ecclesiastes 1:7

That old joke sounded clever the first couple of times I heard it. And this isn’t the first time that I’ve repeated it. Yet God’s people must not be indifferent about ignorance. God speaks this warning through the prophet Hosea: My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. – Hosea 4:6

In the Bible, God counsels us to obtain knowledge, understanding and wisdom. Knowledge can simply be gathered. But without the ability to apply it, knowledge isn’t of much use. That is where understanding comes in. Understanding combines knowledge with an ability to judge and comprehend the subject matter at hand. Wisdom is the possession of a superior level of understanding, the ability to consistently use good sense and judgment.

Here’s an example from my scholastic days. I generally did well in high school, but most of my best subjects were in math and science. At that time, my career goal was in the area of urban planning and transportation engineering. So I made an investment in an expensive must-have reference book: The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.

For the benefit of those who are not familiar with this massive volume, it has the dimensions of a large dictionary, is about 3 inches thick, printed on thin paper. This book is jammed with 2076 pages of formulas, tables, constants, charts, and other facts.

Here is where understanding comes into the picture. Even with my science background, as I thumbed through the book at random today, I came upon many items that I never learned or understood. There are also a number of items that I recognize but have forgotten how to use them. Therefore, large sections of the information in this book are useless knowledge to me at this time.

Furthermore, the edition I own is the 49th edition. The latest edition is the 95th. There are now over 2600 pages of information, and that is after many of the mathematical tables have been removed since they are now readily available with a computer or calculator. As scientific knowledge multiplies, the editors of the Handbook have to constantly evaluate what should be added and what is no longer essential.

Of course, new discoveries also mean that some items that were listed 45 years ago have been clarified or corrected. Some of the material in my edition is no longer reliable. It is out of date. One example of interest to some readers of this blog is related to diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic compound with estrogenic properties which a number of male to female transsexuals have learned that their mothers’ took while pregnant with them. DES is still listed as a treatment for prostate cancer. A more effective pharmaceutical treatment without estrogenic properties replaced DES in common use for prostate cancer in 1985. While DES use during pregnancy was not mentioned in the Handbook, it was not banned until two years after my edition was published. It is no longer manufactured or marketed in the United States since 1997.

No person can know everything. Only God is all-knowing. But collectively, within the body of Christ, it is incumbent upon us to remain aware of the latest additions to the wealth of knowledge in the world’s possession. This means awareness of what are hypotheses, what are theories, what are measured results, and what results have been reproduced and confirmed elsewhere. If that which is proven fact conflicts with man’s interpretation of God’s word, then we must reexamine the interpretation, comparing Scripture with Scripture, until we arrive at an interpretation and understanding that conforms to scientific fact.

This is what is so disturbing about some within the body of Christ, who ignore the proliferation of studies and case studies that demonstrate that the concepts of male and female (both physically and mentally) cannot be put into neat and separate little boxes and that there is a growing amount of evidence of a physical component to an incongruent gender identity; at the same time ignoring the personal testimony of the effort made by transsexual Christians to conform their gender identity to their physical appearance, through prayer and study of the Bible and exercise of faith, only to see our need to live authentically grow stronger and stronger. This is what is so disturbing about being rebuked for relying on science by a brother in Christ and former friend, who ironically has a Ph.D. in a scientific field and by profession (before his recent retirement) designed clinical studies for a major pharmaceutical company.

The war between Christianity and science is a canard whose origins were perpetrated in the 1800’s to discredit Christianity. Yet the story took root and has been repeated so often, it is now considered common knowledge by Christians and the secular world alike. Academic research relying on original sources to debunk this outrageous lie has been ignored for nearly 20 years. Shame on any Christians who have bought into a fraud that was meant to falsely accuse us and embarrass us.

We can get in trouble when we are sloppy in our knowledge of Scripture. In this case, we need to remember that Paul did not warn Timothy (and all people) against all use of science; he warned against “science falsely so called”. (1st Timothy 6:20) We can also look at the example of Daniel, one of the most faithful and obedient of God’s servants despite living in captivity in Babylon, as well as his three friends, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah (who many are more familiar under the names Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego). These four were among the children of Israel chosen for training by Nebuchadnezzar’s servant, Ashpenaz, based in part on being “skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science”. (Daniel 1:4) When these four are eventually set apart from all the others, we learn that it was God who “gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom”. (Daniel 1:17) Who are we to go against God?

Apparently there was junk science in Paul’s day and there is evidence of junk science now. A man of great wisdom wrote these words under the guidance of the Holy Spirit: “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9) But we can find no disapproval in the word of God against the acquisition of knowledge, understanding and wisdom. Nor did “much learning” drive Paul insane.

In other words, God finds no fault in the pursuit of pure science. The word itself comes from the Latin word for “knowledge” based on the verb “to know”. Here are the seven meanings of “science” with key words highlighted:

– a branch of knowledgeor studydealing with a body of factsor truthssystematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:

– systematic knowledgeof the physical or material world gained through observationand experimentation.

– any of the branches of natural or physical science.

– systematized knowledgein general.

– knowledge, as of factsor principles; knowledgegained by systematic study.

Against all these things, God has no law. But to be aware of the things of God, to know what Paul wrote to Timothy or about the godly gifts bestowed upon Daniel and his friends, we need to systematically grow in knowledge of God’s word through continual study.

I expressed my thoughts on this matter in a recent discussion with a dear transsexual Christian friend (and also a scientist!) who I met through this blog. She had expressed the belief that “there is lot more gray in the bible than the simple black and white that is so often touted to be the case in God’s word.” Here is the main part of my reply:

I actually look at it differently. I believe the Bible is black and white. In some ways it has to be, since God doesn’t change, His word is forever settled in heaven and His yes is yes and His no is no.

From my point of view, it isn’t a matter of black and white versus gray. It is a matter of how simple it is. And some things are simple. The basic message that you can come to Christ by faith, childlike faith, is simple enough that young children and unlearned adults can understand and respond to it positively.

But in deeper matters of theology, it takes time and study to harmonize the various passages of God’s word. It takes work and effort. “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” – 2nd Timothy 2:15

The best analogy I can come up with is computer graphics. I am not an expert so I do not know all of terms. But I understand the concepts. Did you know that there are two ways to achieve gray in computer graphics? One way is grayscale. That is a method of adjusting the relative darkness of a pixel. So if a printer is printing a grayscale page, 100% ink equates to black. Anything less than that and you start getting into lighter and darker shades of gray.

But the older method, the only method which certain devices (e.g. laser printers and fax machines) can process, is a binary image. Now if your image resolution is comparable to the video game “Pong”, it will be very difficult to achieve gray. To achieve gray instead of a splotchy black and white image, you need a lot of pixels per square inch (i.e., very tiny pixels, so tiny that it would be almost impossible to see one pixel of black on an otherwise white screen with the naked eye – maybe it would be impossible these days). With high resolution, provide enough magnification and you can see that what looks to be gray is really a combination of very tiny black and white dots.

Over time, ways were found to create processes to make pixels smaller and the resolution better. Each development and advance is like another time of studying the word, except each technology advance improves what you can create; each Bible study improves the amount of detail you can see. And the more detail you can see, the better you know, using Ecclesiastes 3 as an example, when it is right to kill or heal, to speak or be silent, to love or hate, to wage war or make peace. And that would also be true about discerning when it is acceptable in God’s sight to change the gender identity you present to the world.

Almost by necessity to cope with a complex world, people tend to simplify whenever possible. Overdo simplification when it comes to Christianity, turn the microscopic pixels of God’s word into large polka dots, try to squeeze an infinite God into a tight box: you will run into serious error sooner or later.

From the 1950’s through the 1980’s, Dick Young was considered one of the best writers for his ability to cover a baseball game. Breaking new ground, Young looked for inside angles to each game so he could describe why things happened instead of settling for how they happened. As more and more fans first listened to and then watched the games, Young’s style of reporting the game became the standard for engaging the fan’s interest beyond what they had seen and heard. Disdaining the flowery prose and poetic stylings of an earlier generation of writers, his clean, crisp style led to many a discussion by baseball fans as soon as the early edition of the NY Daily News (for whom Young worked for 45 years of his 50 year career) hit the streets.

Young’s column, titled “Young Ideas”, was more controversial, especially as he got older and more conservative while the country became more liberal. From time to time, he would answer letters sent to him through his column. He subtitled those columns with the title of this blog post.

I had a brief flurry of interesting letters sent to me electronically recently. One was sent by my brother. That one is personal at the moment. Perhaps I will be able to share something positive about it in the near future.

Another was a comment about one of my blog posts back in June, my rebuttal to Dr. McHugh’s op ed in the Wall Street Journal. I debated whether to post the comment or trash it. I decided to do neither. I am going to post it and discuss it here very briefly.

I_I_B_@hotmail.com writes: GENEDER INCONGRUENCY DOES NOT EXIST It is all an ilution, transexuals are not women in men bodies.

As a tax preparer, I deal with scams on a regular basis, as more and more of my clients are targeted by them. One of the first suggestions of the IRS and experts on protecting yourself on the Internet is to look for typos, misspellings and grammatical errors. I can overlook the misspelling of “transsexuals” as I have seen it both ways. But to misspell the first word and a primary topic of the post as well as a complete mangling of “illusion” is an indication of a poster with lack of merit.

Knowing there are spelling challenged people out there (even with spell check), let’s move on to the content of the post. Note the bold caps but lack of substantive backing for the position. Back in my days at Cornell’s College of Engineering, we called this a hand-waving argument: long on conclusion, little to zero proof. In general, such responses do not promote discussion. That is the reason that usually they will not be posted, not because they disagree with me. I have already posted comments that have taken positions different than mine.

Better crafted answers are no guarantee of a meaningful response or a willingness to dialog honestly. I also recently received a reply from a former friend and ministry partner who has rejected me because of my transition. He had written a letter to me when I first came out. I worked long and hard on a reply, doing my best to stick to facts, relevant Biblical texts and my personal testimony. Most of all, I painstakingly made sure I avoided responding with any sort of personal attack against him. I know the voice of the accuser. It does not come from the Lord.

Much of what I wrote to him, other than calling upon incidents from our own pasts, has been included in previous posts. I will not, therefore, print our entire exchange. What I will do is quote a relevant section from my letter to him and his response to it. Note that he either ignores what I wrote or makes it seem like I had told him something different, perhaps even opposite what I wrote. In some cases, he (who happens to have a PhD in hard science and worked in the pharmaceutical field prior to his recent retirement), he totally trashes scientific findings.

My statements will be italicized. His statements will be in regular type.

Me (statements I made that indicate that the only justification that matters to me is from God):First of all, the only opinion that truly matters to me is God’s. It is vastly more important to me than that of people, whether they are positive or negative.

God, the righteous judge, is the only arbiter of truth. Out of my respect for you as a friend for many years, I have provided this lengthy explanation to you. But even though I called it a defense at the beginning of this document, the Lord is really the only one before whom I present my case and make my appeal. The only verdict that matters is His.

Him: This is solely a formal and short reply to your latest attempt to justify yourself.

Me (statements I made about the relative unimportance of happiness): In particular, they see that I am much more at peace and have more joy now. What they don’t see, but I know because it relates to what I do when alone, there has also been a manifold increase in my temperance. Peace and temperance are also fruits of the Spirit, are they not? A person might be able to feign happiness. They might be able to appear more spiritually minded. I know of no way to fake fruits of the Spirit and I certainly don’t try to. Nor is Satan able to counterfeit them.

With legitimacy and an end to self-denial, comes authenticity instead of pretense (totally opposite of your erroneous opinion), more complete peace instead of conflict, more inner joy in place of a veneer of happiness (which more people saw through than I ever imagined until they met the real me and shared that knowledge with me).

Him: I received the document you E-mailed to me on September 6th and have read it through 3 times praying that God would “enlighten me” regarding your pursuit of happiness … [sentence continued in the next point made by him]

Me (statements I made based on the Bible regarding the location of gender identity and that God created it that way): And isn’t it interesting that when Paul gives the list of all his identities that he counts as loss compared to his identity in Christ, he omits his gender identity? That identity is too basic, too deep seated to deny. But where does gender identity lie? If it is that basic, is it unreasonable that it would lie anywhere different from where our spiritual identity lies, in the mind?

God is not the author of confusion, but if you assign gender identity on the physical, it becomes confusion for [Intersex] people. This is another compelling reason why the only thing which can make Genesis 1:27 true for every person on the planet (which it must be if God’s word is inerrant) is for gender identity, male and female, to be based on the core gender identity in the mind, not physical characteristics that are sometimes misleading.

If we can deduce that God’s gender identity resides in the mind of God, and if mankind has been created in the image of God, then does it not follow that our gender identity, our maleness or femaleness, resides in our mind, not in our body or any particular body part?

But to counter my Scriptural arguments you are able to come up with only one verse? And that verse has no application at all unless you can come up with Scripture that contradicts my Scriptural references regarding how God defines male and female: what criteria does He look to and use.

Second, I have come up with verse after verse of Scripture that harmonize together. These are verses that give Biblical explanations of why birth defects occur; that show that God is responsible for putting our spirit inside us; that show multiple times that God judges us by what is on the inside, not the outside; that God is not a respecter of persons, so He judges us by our actions, not our identity; plus many other verses relating to the topic. And what have you come up with? One verse that it is easy to show has nothing to do with transsexuals once you understand that being transsexual is medical, not a choice, and that it need not lead to sinful behavior any more than being born with white skin or blue eyes or red hair. [Note: in addition to Genesis 1:27, I quoted eight additional passages relevant to these points: Jeremiah 1:5, Isaiah 44:2, Psalm 139:13-16, Zechariah 12:1, Ecclesiastes 11:5, John 9:2, 1st Samuel 16:7, John 6:63]

Him: … by rejecting the gender God created you to be until you die, i.e., a man, and not a woman.

Me (statements I made based on the type of scientific evidence being presented and how it relates to the Bible): I believe in the 100% accuracy of God’s Word. That means it must not be contradicted by proven fact. If a scientific theory or hypothesis conflicts with God’s Word, I have no reason to change my opinion about soundness of God’s Word on that point and will reject the theory or hypothesis. But if proven fact appears to conflict with God’s Word, and I know that both the fact and God’s Word are correct, then I must conclude that it is man’s understanding of the Scripture that heretofore was flawed, and I trust that a more accurate interpretation of God’s Word can be found to make God’s Word and fact in accord once again.

I will begin by laying a foundation of factual evidence. On that foundation, I will look at what can be discerned about the situation from Scripture, the very Word of God itself. What applies and what does not apply?

I will be providing links to various web sites. They present information on a scientific basis. I have endeavored to find the most up to date scientific findings that are available. I will not be sending you to any “pro-transsexual” propaganda web sites. Nor will I be relying on theories or conjecture.

Let me also make it clear that while psychology is categorized among the sciences, it is one whose findings are highly subject to opinions, presuppositions and so on. Therefore, I am not including anything from a psychology point of view among the science links. I am limiting my references to the science of anatomy, things that can be observed, measured, calculated, correlated and compared. They will cover such topics as chromosomes, internal organs, the brain and receptors.

As best as I can tell, all the links to published papers I am giving you are peer reviewed research.

[Note: see my links page for the links I sent to him.]

Him: If you thought I would be more supportive of your decision to become a woman based on the “pseudoscientific” dribble in your document, you are deceived.

You have obviously tied yourself to science, falsely so called, and [if you] think that God changes His Mind about sin in the light of man’s “scientific” discoveries, you are very seriously deceived.

[My interjection here: he quotes from Timothy 6:20-21 where Paul warns against false science. A reading of that verse clearly indicates that Paul does not claim that all science is false, nor does he warn against all use of science. However, my respondent does not give contrary evidence to the scientific proof I offered. He resorts to a weak and tired tactic of name calling to try to disparage what was sent to him. Note also that I clearly stated that it is not God who changes; rather that it is man’s understanding of Scripture that changes as we learn more about the world God has given to us.]

Me (in addition to repeatedly referring to myself as transsexual, I gave him a number of examples of people who some Christians claim to be cured transsexuals; here is one of those examples): Danny Blackwell (counseled by Jerry Leach) admits to being a transvestite, not a transsexual. It is not the same thing. If a transvestite is being honest, he does not see himself as female. There is an attraction to women’s clothing and perhaps other parts of a woman’s lifestyle, but not an association with a female identity.

Him: I do not want to dialogue again with you unless you tell me that you have come to your senses and repented of transvestism.

Me (statements I made regarding knowing that I am saved. Any evangelical Christian would know that means I have assurance of where I will spend eternity): … I am in Christ and Christ lives in me, that He is not the God of the dead. He is the God of the living.

It wasn’t long after my salvation that I heard a preaching that convicted me of my need to read the Bible all the way through from cover to cover, not just the familiar parts and favorite stories. When the last verse in Revelation has been read, I return to Genesis to start reading the entire Bible once again.

First of all, let me quickly dismiss the question about my salvation. While heeding the admonition to work out my salvation with fear and trembling, I know that I trust Christ and Him alone for my salvation. As I type this to you, I am not far from the spot where I was sitting when I knew that Jesus was the only way to the Father and I surrendered my life to the Lord, repenting of my sins. I recall a key verse in your salvation: Romans 10:14. I have also called upon the Lord and been saved.

Since I was seven years old, I was aware of my female gender identity. Despite all the challenges and hindrances to that awareness, even my own attempts to cure it, remove it or pray it away, it never went away. Receiving Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior in June 1989 did not take it away.

When Jesus Christ paid the full price for our sins as reflected in His statement on the cross, “It is finished,” then no longer can Satan successfully bring railing accusation against those who have whole heartedly received the free gift of salvation, and when we are saved by grace we are saved from the endless lake of fire.

Ultimately you and I both have to follow God as we are able and someday present what we have done with our lives before God to see whether He will find it precious metals and jewels on the one hand, or wood, hay and stubble on the other hand. Either way, if we are in Christ, then we shall be saved, even if by fire.

I have assurance that when Satan accuses me before the Lord on that day, Jesus, the author and finisher of my faith, will declare that my sins have been paid for and my pardon has already been secured. In this regard, I know the pronouncement from the Lord will be “not guilty”.

Him: I absolutely know where I will spend eternity, do you?

[end of the comparison between my statements and his responses]

Unfortunately if minds are closed to the truth, learned people can also be guilty of using hand-waving arguments. They also can ignore facts, ignore what the other person is saying, and even ignore the Word of God which they claim to defend. In my former friend’s initial response to my coming out, he only quoted 1st Corinthians 6:9 to show what I was doing was wrong. In response, I explained that only a male can be effeminate and he hasn’t proven that I am not female; further, I pointed out that if this is the only verse that can be cited, then you have arrived at an intriguing theological point of view that male to female is sinful, but female to male is not. (It is also true that the translation of the Greek word that the KJV translates as “effeminate” is the subject of great debate by scholars. It would be a very slender reed on which to base an entire theology. But I had enough material that I didn’t need to go down the rabbit trail of controversial scholarship.)

So I challenged him to come up with more than that. He came up with Deuteronomy 22:5. However, if you have not come up with Scripture that shows that God identifies our gender identity by what is between our legs rather than what is between our ears, nor have you refuted the many verses I present that show otherwise, then verses about cross-dressing do not apply to a transsexual. In fact because of my transition, I am now in compliance with this verse.

While it hurt for a time to be rejected by someone I counted as I friend for many years, his words do not anger me and the hurt is past. It has been turned over to the Lord. And fortunately I am secure in my faith so that his opinions do not turn me away from Christ, regardless of how many others have the same viewpoint. I know there are many Christians who do not agree with him. Sadly, he and others like him have put forth a stumbling block that keeps people from the Lord. And that is one of the main reasons I have this blog. Even so, my writings are but a faint shadow of one 2000 years ago who asked hard questions of the religious leaders of his time:

And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions. – Matthew 22:46

(If you have not done so, please read the previous post on the same topic before reading this post.)

In Galatians 3:28, part of the verse states that “there is neither male nor female”. We have to be careful not to take this out of context and make this phrase say more than it really does, for there are a number of other passages in the New Testament that speak about separate roles and differences between men and women. However, none of these differences are spiritual.

The full picture is seen by looking at Galatians 3:26-29. This passage is saying something similar to Acts 10, but it extends it beyond Jew and Gentile (“Greek” means Gentile in this context). It is extended to slave and free, as well as gender. Elsewhere, we read that the poor and rich should be treated equally. The Apostle Paul is denouncing the divisions that were creeping into some early Christian churches: divisions based on identity differences that were spiritually unimportant.

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Galatians 3 tells us that when Christians are saved, we put on Christ. Spiritually speaking, God no longer sees us in our filthy rags. He sees us in Christ’s shining robes of righteousness. The price of the clothes we wear, the color of our skin or what is between our legs have no bearing on that marvelous fact.

Throughout the Bible, we see people make the mistake of focusing on the physical and temporal, what they could see, rather than the spiritual and internal, including what God sees inside us. This is the same mistake that mainstream Christianity made when beginning to consider the question of transsexualism once awareness of transsexuals began to reach the general public about 60 years ago.

Fortunately, many Christians are seeing things in a new light, based on a combination of Scriptural truth and scientific fact. And to be fair to those who are holding onto old beliefs, many of those old beliefs were held until fairly recently by many in the scientific community, specifically in the fields of medicine and mental health. So I can understand that they would be slow to jump when science says, in effect, we were wrong before but we are correct now, so go along with us. This is one reason I consider a thorough examination of the Bible in this matter of utmost importance in terms of persuading Christians to accept that transsexualism is not a sin.

The sixth chapter of John’s Gospel is another account of people missing the point: focusing on the physical when they should be focused on the spiritual. Starting in verse 26, Jesus upbraids them for their response to His miracles, particularly the miracle of feeding the thousands (verses 5-13). They had continued to follow Him, looking to fill their bellies when they should be seeking His spiritual food (teaching). In turn, they ask Jesus to validate His ministry. (As if the miracles they had already seen weren’t enough!)

Jesus begins His response in verse 32. During this response, in which there are some further exchanges between the crowd and Jesus, allegories continue to be made to spiritual food by Jesus. He tells them that He is the bread of life which came down from heaven, among other things. The crowd begins to grumble at this statement, in part because of mistaken identity. They refer to Mary and Joseph, who they have known as His parents. Jesus is talking about His spiritual origin from His heavenly Father.

But now, Jesus takes it more than a step further. As far as the crowd and even a number of His own disciples are concerned, He goes way out on a limb. Here are those apparently outrageous remarks in verses 50-58:

“This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”

It’s a good thing that they did NOT have mass communication in Jesus’ day. Can you picture the tweets and Facebook posts? “Self-proclaimed Messiah offers strange menu.” “Son of God or son of cannibals?” “Jesus shocks crowd by offering them his flesh and blood for a snack.” And there would be at least a hundred You Tube videos by those with presence of mind to pull out their cell phones and start recording. Prominent leaders would call on Him to retract His remarks. One group after another cancels His upcoming appearances. His synagogue threatens to remove Him from the membership rolls if He doesn’t recant.

These reactions are not speculation. They are the 21st century equivalent of what took place nearly two thousand years ago. Even some of His disciples grumbled when they heard these remarks. First He poses a rhetorical question, asking them how they would react if they saw Jesus ascending to heaven (which He did after the resurrection). Then he speaks the key statement that clearly explains what He meant by eating and drinking His flesh and blood.

In verse 63 He says, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” In 1611, the verb “quickeneth” meant to give life. It is used in the Apostles’ Creed in its nominative form when it talks about Jesus judging “the quick and the dead”.

It is the spirit that gives life. Jesus is talking to them about spiritual food, spiritual flesh and blood, not literally physical flesh and blood. And the physical? It isn’t profitable for anything, nothing truly important. Yes, it helps us by providing communication, mobility, dexterity and the five senses. But compared to the far more important spiritual, that which is related to eternal life, the physical is useful for nothing. When compared to eternity, life on earth is a mere blink of the eye.

This wasn’t the kind of Messiah that many, even among those who were following Jesus, were looking for. They wanted a Messiah who would only speak smooth words, who would pour out miracle after miracle upon them, build up a large enough following to drive out the Romans and establish an earthly kingdom. So even after this clarifying answer, John records that many of those who had been following Jesus turned away and departed from Him.

Enough of them departed that Jesus even asked His inner circle of twelve if they would also leave Him. Peter, often the first to respond, gets it right this time. He answers (verse 68), “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” God has revealed to him which of the two is more important.

When so many who were in the presence of Jesus and who heard His explanation get it wrong, it is understandable that some Christians today get it wrong, too. But that doesn’t excuse the error. They know how the story unfolds. They have the entire Bible to see verse after verse and passage after passage that emphasizes that it is the spirit, the things unseen and eternal, that are more important because they are the source of eternal life. Why would they base their gender identity on the physical (if in fact they do for themselves) and insist on basing the identity of others (transsexuals in particular) on the physical? Why would they believe that this is how God sees it?

The third and final additional passage I will consider on this topic will be discussed in the next post. The Apostle Paul has some interesting things to say about identity by looking at his own.

WordPress has a Links widget that can be used to add links to the menu bar or a footer. I decided that I wanted something with more flexibility. So I have created a Links page instead, with my home page as the parent page.

In the future, I may add more links (as I come across interesting items) or different categories of links. For now, I am focusing on the idea that transsexualism is a birth defect.

In my previous three posts, we looked at what the Bible says about the formation of a baby in the womb, what part God plays in that and also that Satan plays a limited part in corrupting what was originally designed by God (in His image) as a perfect body template.

Hopefully, it was understood from my previous posts that it cannot be the sins of the unborn baby that cause it to be born with imperfections. At this point, let me clarify by adding that also it is not particularly the sins of the parents. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” (Romans 3:23). God isn’t singling out some parents because they are sinners and sparing others because they are righteous. Rather it is because Satan has a foothold in the world and a limited ability to cause trouble in the world. But God still has ultimate authority, and whatever birth defects He allows, He allows for His ultimate purposes and perfect plan.

I believe that there is a place for faith in God and a place for scientific facts and evidence. Scientific theory, hypothesis and conjecture will come and go. The field of nutrition is a great example. I would have driven myself crazy long ago if I bounced back and forth with the prevailing opinions about eggs, wine, red meat, carbs, protein, coffee and so on. Furthermore, theories, hypotheses and conjectures may be the majority opinion, but they are far less likely to be universally accepted in the scientific community than proven fact.

So if the Bible appears to conflict with a scientific theory, hypothesis or conjecture currently held by a majority of scientists, I do not rush or even crawl to change my understanding of the Bible. But trusting in both an inerrant Bible and proven scientific fact, if they appear to be in conflict, I know that it must be man’s prevailing interpretation of Scripture that must be wrong, not the Bible itself.

For example, an area that put scientists in conflict with the Church (and to be honest, some earlier scientists) many centuries ago was in the area of the nature of our planet. Any Bible verses that appeared to make the earth the center of the universe have to now be interpreted spiritually instead of physically. And those who believed that the earth is flat ignored Isaiah 40:22 where it talks about “the circle of the earth.”

Microscopes, MRI’s, autopsy studies, microbiology, bio-engineering, genetic research, DNA research, population increase and advances in communication to share information have all led to a far greater understanding of the human body than could have been conceived of when Christine Jorgensen’s story first became public, let alone in the days the King James Bible was translated or in Biblical times. This does not mean that the Bible is incorrect. It means that there are times when man’s interpretation has to be reexamined in the light of new evidence.

For someone like me who is a very spiritually-minded Christian, I have to attribute the hand of God as far when information came to my attention in answer to certain things I was told.

The first two instances involve the counseling I was receiving (actually more like open discussions) from my pastor. He is a wonderful, loving, compassionate Christian with whom I still fellowship until this day. When I first came out to him and his wife using the video provided for that purpose by Deep Stealth Productions, he admitted to me that this was something he had never examined from a theological perspective and needed to discreetly consult with someone else. That eventually led to me talking with someone who was affiliated with a church in Greenwich Village, but I later found out was also connected to Exodus International.

After one conversation with this man, I knew there was no point in any further discussion with him. It was clear that we could not agree on basic terms. He still clung to the vastly outdated notion that sexuality and gender are not different. (But to be fair. as recently as DSM-IV, transsexualism was still considered a subset of male homosexuality, as pointed out by a cisgender friend taking psychology courses.)

Lo and behold, a few months later, Exodus International made a totally unexpected announcement that reparitive therapy does not work and that every person who reported success eventually admitted that the feelings and desires did not go away. I immediately recognized that if it doesn’t work for homosexuals, it certainly will not work fro transsexuals.

(As an aside, this person from Exodus told me of an ex-trans person that he was recommending I talk to. However, I was told it might be a while because this person was away on a trip. I would have been willing to talk to him. But somehow, he never materialized. Did he become ex-ex-trans? Did they take notice of my intelligence and thought I would try to talk him into going back into living as female – something I would never do, by the way: if someone is not trans, why would I try to convince the opposite and cause the very same mind-body incongruity that I am trying to escape? Anyway, I probably will never know, unless this person eventually reads this post and recognition ensues.)

The next time was when I mentioned a MTF transsexual I knew who had fathered a child. My pastor’s response was that he could understand a person choosing gender transition if there was some physical gender ambiguity. But if the person fathered a child, he was unquestionably male. Within a month, I read the article on Stevie Crecelius to which I have posted a link. Stevie, who been living as a female for about six years with a supportive second wife, fathered two children before learning from an ultrasound that she also had female organs inside of her and it explained the feelings she had all of her life.

More recently, when a Christian friend respectfully told me that she would not be contacting me any more, she made a statement to the effect that I could not have been born female because I was not born with a vagina. Again, only weeks later, I came upon an article about a British teenager who had to deal with the fact that she was born without a vagina. Furthermore, I found that this condition is not particularly rare in terms of birth defects. MRKH (you can see the full term in the links) occurs in approximately 1 out of 4500 women. Statistically speaking, this means that in a city with the population of New York City, there would be about 900 women who were born either without or with a grossly underdeveloped vagina, cervix and uterus. (I will be discussing this further in my next post.)

The bottom line is that the concept of gender and birth sexuality is not as cut and dried as people once believed. As Alice Dreger discusses in the video I posted, there are XX “men” and XY “women” who develop in a body opposite their sex chromosomal norm because of insensitivity to certain hormones. (Note: the video appears to be suddenly cut off, but every version I found had the same length.)

The first section of links relate to various intersex conditions that interested me in terms of relevance to the MTF transsexual experience. The second section relates to admittedly drier scientific articles discussing brain studies and how various tests and measurements show that the brains of MTF transsexuals are closer to the female normative than the male normative.